No. X. Mr SAMUEL HUNTER to Mr WILLIAM SMELLIE. DEAR SIR, No date. Having thought of an argument for the moral character of the Deity somewhat different from any I remember to have seen, I intend in this letter to lay it before you. If it has any force at all, it deserves attention ; if it has none, it only goes the way that many others have gone before it. By particular affections implanted in human nature, men are naturally led in some cases to virtuous actions. Conscience, approving of every virtuous action, and disapproving the contrary, has a farther tendency to make us virtuous; and, since conscience is naturally superior to all particular affections, and has a right to have its dictates listened to, it is a declaration from the Author of our nature of what conduct he requires from us. Any advantages to be ob tained by a virtuous conduct are farther incitements to virtue. By the constitution of nature, then, men are directed to be virtuous. There is, from analogy, a presumption that God directs his creatures to that conduct which he approves; he approves of virtue; and a being, therefore, who approves of virtue, is virtuous. The same considerations may, I think, be so extended as to give some ground to think he is so in a higher degree than appears in the government of the world. IN the constitution of things, there is plainly a plan laid down, which, if it were kept to, would render men more happy, and would proportion their happiness more exactly to their virtue, than we find to be the case in the government of the world. Did we obey the dictates of conscience in every case, we should be saved from many of the inconveniencies which we bring upon ourselves: Did others obey their consciences, we should be saved from most of the calamities brought upon us by others. In cases where a man offends, every mans having a sense of merit or demerit, together with an indignation at vice, has a tendency to punish vice more uniformly than it actually is punished. Now, if we look for the character of the Deity, rather in the plan that he has laid down, and in what he has done himself, than in those things which are the consequences of the actions of voluntary agents, we shall find his intention to be, that men should all be virtuous, and happy in proportion to their virtue. In order to shew that there shall be a state of retribution, we have then only to shew that God keeps to his first intention; that his plan is upon the whole consistent, and is carried into execution; and of this we have as strong proofs as analogy can afford; as in every instance we know of or can conceive, laying a plan and giving it up proceeds from weakness or want of foresight. We have also proofs of God acting according to consistent plans, from the observations we can make on the works of nature. We may come to the same conclusion by a shorter road. God has made us to approve of perfect virtue; which is a direction for us to practise perfect virtue, But God does not shew perfect virtue in the government of the world; he approves, therefore, of more perfect virtue than he shews, and is therefore possessed of a more perfect virtue. The weakness of all the arguments to prove the Deity possessed of a more perfect virtue than he shews, seems to be in this, that they are all founded on analogy; and in this case, it is plain that analogy affords at best only weak evidence. Yet, in the coolest speculation, I find some of the analogies on this subject have force; and, when I would give up the point, force me to some sort of assent. So far as the point concerns practice, I think analogy sufficient to determine what is the prudent part. It is a guide we are obliged to trust; a guide whom, in most cases where we try, we find faithful and safe. Why, then, should we distrust it here? I SHALL make no apology for troubling you with so much on this subject. I confess I am loath to give up the point, and would gladly take hold of any thing which can throw any light on the subject. If you can find time to write it will be very refreshing. You can send a letter by the Saline carrier along with the newspapers. We expect *** *** here some of these days. Yours, &c. SAM. HUNTer. IN the course of his studies, Mr SMELLIE shewed a decided preference to that of Natural History in all its branches, and at one period became much attached to that of Botany; but his duties as corrector of the press to Messrs MURRAY and COCHRANE did not allow him sufficient leisure for collecting so many plants himself as he wished to obtain ; and in the summer 1760, being engaged in writing a Botanical essay, which afterwards gained the prize, he employed the present Mr PILLANS, printer in Edinburgh, then his reading boy, as his assistant in traversing the fields round Edinburgh early in the mornings in search of flowers, His instructions were, to gather every plant, of whatever nature, that had a flower; which, when obtained and examined, Mr SMELLIE carefully inserted in a folio book kept for that purpose, writing on the opposite page a particular account of the plant, with its nature and virtues, and every circumstance he knew respecting it. At this time he collected an extensive Hortus Siccus, containing above 400 native plants; most of which he presented to Dr HOPE, then Professor of Botany, and afterwards gave a duplicate of his collection to the Antiquarian Society. The fol |